Slurs
|
b. 49
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The missing slur probably stems from inattention of the engraver of GE1, although it cannot be excluded that Chopin added this slur only in the last proofreading of FE (→EE). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 50
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
In FE, the beginning of the slur is written in such a way that it remains unclear whether it runs from the first or the second demisemiquaver. According to us, the first possibility is more likely, hence we adopt it in the main text. Cf. a similar problem in the next bar. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 51
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
In this context, the missing slurs must be considered an inaccuracy; therefore, in the main text we add them after the previous bar and analogous bar 100. Such additions were introduced already in GE3. In turn, the slurs added in EE, unjustified by the accompaniment structure, cannot be authentic. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 51
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
Just like in bar 50, the beginning of the slur in FE may be interpreted in two ways: falling over the first or the second demisemiquaver. However, in this case the placement of the mark rather suggests the latter. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 51
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
GE3 does not have any slurs in this bar, which must be a mistake (we discuss the first slur separately). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
2 in 
